Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal held that the subsequent furnishing of Form 27C constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the assessees cannot be treated as defaulters merely due to the delay in obtaining the forms.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of incomplete submission of a questionnaire and missing attachments was an error. The defects were curable, and the Commissioner should have provided an opportunity to rectify them.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. However, it strongly deprecated the assessee's non-compliance and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. However, it strongly deprecated the assessee's non-compliance and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the date of installation is attached to the asset and does not change with ownership. It further ruled that the transferor's WDV cannot be automatically substituted for the assessee's actual cost, especially when the transaction is at arm's length and supported by valuation reports.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish the statutory conditions for taxation for the additions made. Deficiencies in documentation or dissatisfaction with explanations do not substitute for foundational evidence required to sustain additions.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remitted the penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal, granting the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the founder trustee and his unfamiliarity with electronic communication. The issue of expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard as a new issue was raised with only seven days to respond. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent furnishing of Form 27C constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the assessees cannot be treated as defaulters merely due to the delay in obtaining the forms.
The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained cash credits. Instead, it directed the AO to restrict the addition to the estimated differential interest income from the money-lending activity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh adjudication as the assessee could not effectively participate in the proceedings due to incorrect email service.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the jurisdictional grounds and instead remitted the matter. However, the Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional ground based on a High Court decision. On merits, the Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order to remit the matter for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. Despite the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice, with a cost imposed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition. While deprecating the assessee's non-response, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent furnishing of Form 27C constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the assessees cannot be treated as defaulters merely due to the delay in obtaining the forms.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 98 days in filing its own appeal, finding the reasons provided in the affidavit to be bonafide. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have also condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of incomplete submission of a questionnaire and missing attachments was an error. The defects were curable, and the Commissioner should have provided an opportunity to rectify them.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of excess depreciation on the cogeneration plant was not justified, as the components were integral to the plant and eligible for higher depreciation. The appeal was partly allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent furnishing of Form 27C constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the assessees cannot be treated as defaulters merely due to the delay in obtaining the forms.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the cash deposit issue and remitted it for fresh assessment. It also directed the Assessing Officer to apply the normal rate of tax instead of Section 115BBE for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A was unsustainable because the AO failed to clearly specify the nature of the default (underreporting vs. misreporting) in the penalty notices, leading to a non-application of mind. The penalty for underreporting was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue concerning the same property and another co-owner was restored to the AO for de novo examination. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment to ascertain ownership, share, and correct capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had applied more than the statutory requirement of 85% of its income towards its objects, including capital expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and the lack of awareness of the legal heirs. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction for compulsory scrutiny was contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 4 of 2018, as the assessee's case did not fall under the prescribed parameters. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach to rectify the interest computation was erroneous. It reasoned that once a return is e-verified, it relates back to the date of filing, and considering the COVID-19 pandemic and extensions granted by the Supreme Court, no interest under Section 234A could be levied.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had followed the prevailing High Court decision at the time, subsequent amendments by the Finance Act, 2026, and a Supreme Court order necessitated a fresh consideration. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of fixed deposits was not justified as the investments were made by the assessee's father in earlier years, not by the assessee in the current year. The addition on account of cash deposits was also deleted, finding a nexus between earlier cash withdrawals and subsequent deposits.
The Tribunal held that the core issue was whether the borrowings were utilized for investment in the partnership firm. This required factual verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude certain comparables and restore others for re-computation, finding the CIT(A)'s analysis to be a plausible and correct view. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding the exclusion of comparables and the computation of foreign tax credit.
The Tribunal held that the explanations for the cash deposits were not fully verified by the lower authorities and required further examination. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for limited verification of the sources explained by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent development of obtaining valid registration covering the relevant assessment years nullified the basis for denying the Section 11 exemption. Therefore, the denial of exemption was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the stage of issuing a notice under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the property was duly recorded in the assessee's balance sheet and the sources of investment were explained. Therefore, treating the recorded investment as unexplained under Section 69 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the mere description of activities as 'religious-cum-charitable' is not determinative of eligibility for Section 80G approval. The actual objects and application of funds are crucial, and a trust can be both religious and charitable.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent development of obtaining valid registration covering the relevant assessment years nullified the basis for denying the Section 11 exemption. Therefore, the denial of exemption was incorrect.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. Given the circumstances of the notices going to the spam folder, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the condition of filing Form 67 within the due date is directory in nature. Since the assessee filed Form 67 before the AO's rejection order, the FTC claim should not have been disallowed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments made in a District Central Cooperative Bank, which is itself a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO erred in disallowing the claim based on a misinterpretation of the nature of the income and the eligible entities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be faulted for not responding to notices sent to an invalid email ID. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of knowledge of e-proceedings. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P solely due to a delay in filing the return is a procedural aspect that should not override the substantive entitlement, especially when there is no tax evasion. The Tribunal referred to a High Court judgment and CBDT circulars empowering the condonation of such delays.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the notice under Section 148A(b) did not provide the mandatory seven clear days for response. As the assessment order was invalid, the subsequent penalty levied under Section 270A was also deemed null and void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the AO passed the assessment order without giving a proper opportunity to the assessee and restored the assessment back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, citing violation of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were vague as they did not specify the exact fault of the assessee. Furthermore, the tax audit reports were available before the processing of returns. Therefore, the penalty levied was bad in law.